Producers want minister's head
For the sake of argument

By John Phillips

The chickens have come to roost for Ottawa's farm policy fumblers. While corn producers at a recent emergency Port Perry meeting called for the dismissal of Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, some of his bright lads felt U.S. subsidies do not have a major impact on Ontario's producers. At the same time, other bright lads reviewing farm income safety nets believe President Bush's generous farm help measures were of "concern" to them.

Confusing the issue further, there is a news report that Mr. Vanclief wrote to Finance Minister Paul Martin contending that sector subsidies should be avoided. So what does Ottawa's ruling elite have in mind? Taking advice from the grass roots is not on the agenda largely, it is thought, because "subsidy" is a rude word and runs contrary to Cabinet free trade theories.

How asinine when the world's two major trading blocks, the U.S. and European Union (EU), hatch almost fresh weekly plans to help their beleaguered farmers. Sure, the word "subsidy" is seldom used, so political leaders preach the virtues of saving the environment, whether wetland protection, saving wildlife, preserving soil fertility, environmental health and other issues popular with a trendy urban population.

Naturally, Brussels encounters few problems when finding around $80 billion for agriculture, including a recent $7 billion to help speed exports overseas. Only a mean-spirited urban bigot would complain should a farmer get a E30,000 cheque to make land improvements. In fact, it would be perceived as anti-environment or anti-endangered species to oppose "enlightened" government spending.

Evidently, EU farm groups have done a great job. It's the same story across the border. Tough farm pressures persuaded both Republican and Democrat politicians to greatly enhance an environmental quality program, now part of the new Freedom to Farm bill. It would hike farmer payouts to US$50,000 a year or $150,000 over a given period.

Payments would be restricted to "genuine" family farms. Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone contends that "big operations and factory farms" must be excluded because they "grow with little regard for environmental damage and public heath threats arising from huge amounts of waste." Unsaid is that President Bush wants to win most of the farm states in November's elections.

The environmental goodie adds to the $105 billion pledged over the next 10 years. This is a base figure. Respected U.S. farm analyst Prof. David Orden predicts additional subsidies likely will rise $11 billion a year over the coming decade. Unfortunately, Ottawa's mandarins and politicos seem incapable of grasping this reality and the fact that America's trade policy is as dead as the Do-do. Those WTO bureaucrats had better keep their cotton-picking noses out of Washington's affairs.

Guess what? Mr. Vanclief's bright lads now have a new coffee-time discussion piece: Accenting the quality of Canadian food exports sold on world markets. Transactions would carry a premium, thus avoiding world-style subsidies. What are they smoking?